Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the woken machine becomes active, that its filesystem is restored exactly as left, and crucially that any other running computer is put to sleep with its files archived rather than discarded. This is exactly the side-effect information an agent needs before a state-changing call. Auth/permission requirements and error behavior (e.g., unknown environment id) are not covered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the consequential side effects. No filler, no restatement of the title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior an agent must know: activation, filesystem restoration, and preemption of other environments. It is slightly thin on failure modes and what (if anything) is returned, but nothing critical is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter ('environment': computer id, slug or name) is fully documented there. The description implies the parameter identifies a sleeping computer but adds no syntax or resolution details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (wake a sleeping computer), then adds the two distinguishing outcomes: it becomes the active environment and its filesystem is restored exactly as left. This clearly separates it from sleep_environment and create_environment without needing to read the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The precondition is explicit – the target must be a sleeping computer – so an agent knows the trigger condition. It does not name alternatives (e.g., create_environment for a fresh machine) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.